get_transcript

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'GET /api/v1/transcripts/{video_id}', implying a read-only HTTP operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full transcript' entails (e.g., format, length limits). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get full transcript for a video'), followed by an API endpoint detail. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the endpoint detail might be redundant if the agent already knows the tool's name and context. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, 20% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like how parameters interact (e.g., 'id' vs. 'source'). For a tool that retrieves data with multiple filtering options, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is low at 20%, with only one parameter ('id') having a description. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'video_id' in the path but not explaining other parameters like 'language', 'source', or 'include_timestamps'. It fails to compensate for the poor schema coverage, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get full transcript') and resource ('for a video'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_transcripts' or 'transcribe_v2', which might offer overlapping functionality for transcript retrieval or generation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_transcripts' (which might list multiple transcripts) or 'transcribe_v2' (which might generate new transcripts). It only states what the tool does without context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.